After 25 Years In Prison, Man Is Finally Free After Being Framed By Detroit PD

...new tests on the bullets supported his remarkable claim that police framed him with bogus evidence.

Whose bullets were they?

Might not necessarily have a trace on whose they were but they could tell they were not from a gun he handled.

So why did the cops knowingly 'frame him'? Who were they covering for?

Edit: I have to go so instead of playing twenty questions I'll just add something...

Bullet forensics are as accurate as finger prints. If the lands and grooves match there is no doubt. If the lab declared a match falsely, they knew it
was a hoax, apparently they 'have been closed' for 'mishandling' evidence? Thats evidence of a far deeper problem connected with the P, not just
"whoopsies".

...new tests on the bullets supported his remarkable claim that police framed him with bogus evidence.

Whose bullets were they?

Might not necessarily have a trace on whose they were but they could tell they were not from a gun he handled.

So why did the cops knowingly 'frame him'? Who were they covering for?

Edit: I have to go so instead of playing twenty questions I'll just add something...

Bullet forensics are as accurate as finger prints. If the lands and grooves match there is no doubt. If the lab declared a match falsely, they knew it
was a hoax, apparently they 'have been closed' for 'mishandling' evidence? Thats evidence of a far deeper problem connected with the P, not just
"whoopsies".

25 years later, likely your questions cannot be answered.

This case demonstrates how poor our criminal justice system is.

Or how entrenched the corruption is. They only let him go after so many years because the responsible are dead or retired from the force.

They know why this guy was in prison all these years, and they don't care. They were forced to let him go because of publicity, not because they were
sorry, they let him go because they were found out.

Forensic examiners use the marks left on bullets to match them to specific firearms, but the technique lacks a solid base of research, and errors
are common.

Forensic examiners measure bullet size to determine caliber, then check the direction of rifling marks and the degree of twist to narrow down the
gun's manufacturer. To match a specific firearm to a bullet, investigators test-fire the weapon with a new slug and compare both bullets under a
microscope, looking for identical striations. Investigators can also query computer databases that suggest potential matches.

As with fingerprints, not enough research has been done to quantify the probability of error in ballistics matching. So it's impossible to say with
certainty that the marks made on bullets as they are fired are truly unique to an individual gun. Currently, ballistics examiners are aided by
computer databases such as the ATF's National Integrated Ballistic Information Network, but lab techs always rely on their own visual inspection to
make the final call. The Association of Firearm and Tool Mark Examiners only requires an examiner to find "sufficient agreement" between bullets in
order to conclude that they came from the same gun. Those judgment calls can cause false results. Last September the Detroit Police Department's crime
lab was shut down after an audit by the state of Michigan found a 10 percent error rate in ballistics identification.

Let's take a look at something more recent,

One fundamental problem with ﬁrearms analysis is the lack of a precisely deﬁned process, the NAS found. An examiner may offer an opinion
that a speciﬁc tool or ﬁrearm was the source of a speciﬁc mark when “sufﬁcient agreement” exists in the pattern of two sets of marks, but
there is no precise definition for that statement. The NAS also found there have been no scientific studies to answer questions regarding variability,
reliability, repeatability, or the number of correlations needed to achieve a given degree of conﬁdence.

Sorry, replying twice. I trust the main stream to confuse the issue, (especially Frontline) the forensics of firearms identifications is a lot more
detailed than they presented in their show. All they concluded was it can't be trusted. Leaving out the injustice of the current justice system
entirely...

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.